Would just like to inquire to when the Supplementary Estimates QON are
due as it doesn't appear to be listed on the RRAT Estimates webpage?

Also are the AQON, in particular the CASA AQON, going to be published
before or early into the New Year?

Thank you in advance,

Kind regards,

P2.
Dear P2,

Thank you for your email. Answers to QONs for the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport committee were due on 15 December 2017. We will update the web page to reflect this shortly.

We received and published a number of answers on Friday, however we have not yet been sent all the answers. If these are received before this Friday, they will be published this week, otherwise they will be published early in January.

Or is it that the answers are yet to be forwarded from the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Transport?

Regards,

P2.Hi P2,We have yet to receive any answers from CASA, Airservices Australia or Aviation and Airports Division, however I believe the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development are hoping to supply us with the remaining answers early this week.Please do not hesitate to contact me with any further questions.Kind regards,

Quote:...At last NY’s day :-SBG #1 - .1/.1./.17. -" for example the Australian aviation industry, where, clearly, it is to everyone’s advantage to make things ‘better’. Did that happen in 2016? Of course not. Could it have happened in 2016? It bloody well should have – alas. Australian aviation enters the new year still burdened by the same troubles; the same unresolved issues, the same deft deflection of meaningful reform, the same denial that there are serious problems. Mind you, as the industry shrinks, real reform and good management become of less concern to the people who not only created the aberration, but have the power to fix it". Amazing...

It is rare thing for me to re read any of my scribblings; but I sat here and looked at the first SBG for 2017. Drones still feature high on the ‘to-do’ list; although the Senate Committee seem to be getting a handle on the matter – albeit at a snails pace; but, the consensus is that they at least will produce an outcome. Their inquiry has at least publicly highlighted the CASA attitude and lack of imagination; many believe their lack of competence has been exposed throughout the inquiry.

In fact, when you start to add up the lacklustre CASA performance on just about any subject mentioned at Estimates, you have to start wondering about cost v benefit...

With the departure before year's end of 6D AGAD, somewhat by default the 'lacklustre' and disappointing year of 2017 will now be recorded on the Carmody legacy register. Therefore I thought it worth reviewing the performance and achievements of DAS Carmody to this point in time and what better place to start than reviewing CC's performance in Senate Estimates...

To begin who could forget, under questioning from Sterlo at Budget Estimates (23/5/17), when Carmody tried to water down the fact that CASA had not even written the ToR for the drone review that the minister had requested CASA conduct some 8 months before:

While on drones what about the flippant Carmody attitude and 'up yours' insult under questioning from Chair Barry O...

Then there was the 'vague', non-committal, obfuscated response by CC, when under questioning by NX on the subject of oversight of airport safety, in relation to the tragic Essendon airport accident (Add Estimates 27/02/17):

And from Supp Estimates who could forget the arrogance and disdain displayed by Carmody when NX (in his final Estimates) was questioning him on matters in relation to the DJ CASA embuggerance:

To wrap up the Carmody performance under Senate Estimates scrutiny, here is the list of outstanding QON that have now passed the due date to be answered (i.e. another blatant display of 'up yours' to the Senators):

Quote:Question on notice no. 112

Portfolio question number: 461

2017-18 Supplementary budget estimates

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure and

Regional Development Portfolio

Senator Janet Rice: asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 23 October 2017—
What is the status of the flight crew fatigue rules, under CAO 48.1, currently?
1. Have the anticipated changes been delayed? If so, for how long, and why?
2. When is it anticipated that these fatigue rules will be in place?Question on notice no. 113

Portfolio question number: 436

2017-18 Supplementary budget estimates

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure and

ACTING CHAIR: You are inconsistent you being CASA. Let's talk about the fellow
who flew the drone down to Bunnings to pick up the sausage. What fine did he get?Mr Carmody: I don't know. One of my colleagues would know. Senator GALLACHER: $3,000, wasn't it?ACTING CHAIR: Let's get it out. I'd ask it to be on the record so every Australian can hear it: as long as you are a pilot and it's the firsttime, you're going to get away with it. Ready kids? All the kids are going to get the drones for this Christmas. There are rules that say you can't do this, but it depends on
who you are. There seems to be one rule for one and rules for others. I'm waiting for
whoever you can bring up, Mr Carmody, because I really want to know why a pilot
can fly a drone over Parliament House and then just get a tap on the toenail. But let's
hear what happened to the gentleman who flew his drone down to Bunnings to pickup a sausage. Mr Carmody: I haven't got the details. I'm waiting for one of my colleagues, who I hope will have the details of the offence. We'll have to dig it up...

Mr Carmody: Dr Aleck will have some details about penalties. Dr Aleck: I regret tosay that I don't have these identified by the Bunnings event. Senator STERLE: Doyou want me to google it? Dr Aleck: I recall I will confirm this that that matter didinvite an infringement notice. Senator GALLACHER: $3,000 is what was reported.Dr Aleck: Whatever the penalty was, if that was the case. Senator GALLACHER:
He put it on Facebook that his drone went down, picked up a sausage, came back.You looked at that and fined him $3,000. Dr Aleck: I believe that was the case, and
I'm not doubting it. I'll confirm it.

Question on notice no. 114

Portfolio question number: 437

2017-18 Supplementary budget estimates

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure and

CHAIR: I hope you don't mind me interjecting. I wasn't even going to buy into this I
was half asleep here when this started. Do you mind if I return to a line of questioning
of Dr Aleck? So far you've indicated that you identified one person and you reflected
on the inability to identify others because you weren't aware of their identity. So theone person you spoke to was a member of parliament. Let me ask you, Dr Aleck:

surely, question 101 from your investigator would be to the member of parliament,
'Who else was here?' and I assume the member of parliament ought to be able to tell
you, with about 80 or 90 per cent accuracy, how many people were here and who they
were. My question is very specific: did your investigator ask the individual, the
member of parliament who you're about to identify, who else was present and howmany there were? Dr Aleck: If our investigator had the opportunity to speak withthem CHAIR: If you don't know the answer, Dr Aleck, say, 'I do not know theanswer.' Dr Aleck: I do not know the answer, but I can assure you that the question

CHAIR: No, there's no need for you to editorialise. I ask you to take on notice, with
your investigator, whether they asked the member of parliament about who was there
and how many there were. But you're about to identify the member of parliament whowas interviewed. Dr Aleck: The member of parliament whose office was contacted
was Michelle Landry and, as I explained, our efforts to interview Ms Landry wereunsuccessful at this point. CHAIR: So we're dealing in months here. How manyefforts have been made to engage with Ms Landry over the months? Dr Aleck: I'll
take that on notice, but Ms Landry was identified only relatively recently. We had
misidentified her as somebody else in the frame and that was corrected.

Question on notice no. 115

Portfolio question number: 438

2017-18 Supplementary budget estimates

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure and

Senator STERLE: I'll make a statement here, rather than a question. You ping any
other Australian for breaking these rules, and you don't think we're going to come
back here and say, 'Here we go again'? You cannot be serious. You are the enforcers.
You are the ones who lay down the rules. You are so blinded because politicians orpolitical employees can get away with murder around your rules defend that. Mr

Carmody: I'm happy to provide on notice lists of where we've provided counselling
letters for similar offences. I didn't realise that, from what Senator Gallacher said, you
were after a higher standard. I thought you were after the same standard. We're very
happy to provide on notice where we've issued counselling letters as well, if thatwould help. Senator STERLE: Have you had to counsel any pilots for breaking yourrules for usage of drones? Mr Carmody: I'd have to take it on notice. We've
counselled a number of people. As I said, it depends on the circumstance. We've fined
a number of people, and it depends on the circumstance.

Question on notice no. 116

Portfolio question number: 439

2017-18 Supplementary budget estimates

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure and

CHAIR: I'm not done. If you'd like some names, Dr Aleck: the Deputy Prime
Minister, Senator Canavan, Mr Perrett, Mr McCormack and Mr Buchholz were there,
and I'll have some more for you in the fullness of time. My question to you is did yourinvestigators even interview the operator of the drone? Dr Aleck: Yes. CHAIR: Didthey ask him who else was present or what numbers were present? Dr Aleck: I'll take
that question on notice. I assume they conducted a normal investigation, which would
have involved questions of that.

Question on notice no. 117

Portfolio question number: 440

2017-18 Supplementary budget estimates

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure and

CHAIR: You're telling me someone started an investigation and interviewed an
individual, at least with a view to a prosecution, and didn't record it to the standard
that would be required to underpin that prosecution? Are there no notes, no
contemporaneous record of the conversation, no recording taped, no video orotherwise? Is that what you're telling us? Dr Aleck: I will only say that the maximum
consequence of such an event was an infringement notice. I'm not aware of matters ofthat kind. CHAIR: That is not the burden of my question. Are you telling this
committee that your investigator, confronted with a witness or a potential offender,
who you say wasn't totally cooperative, did not record in any shape or form theinterview that took place? Dr Aleck: I said I don't believe so, but I'll confirm that.

Question on notice no. 119

Portfolio question number: 442

2017-18 Supplementary budget estimates

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure and

Senator XENOPHON: It is a sensitive issue. The standard form recommendation, as
I understand it, is a document relating to adding references to a flight crew licencecondition. Is that right? Mr Carmody: In reality it's a recommendation that might
have many functions. It's a way of combining information to a decision-maker like
me, a recommendation for us to take a particular course of action. So it might not belicensing; it could be anything. Senator XENOPHON: Sure, but the normal course is
that for the document to be a valid document, it ought to be a signed document is thatright? Mr Carmody: Yes, that would be reasonable. Senator XENOPHON: That's
in terms of the appropriateness. My understanding is that a recommendation was
made, but it was not signed off. In other words, are you satisfied, and you may want
to take this on notice, that the standard form recommendation that I have referred youto is appropriately executed so as to be a valid document? Mr Carmody: I'd have to
take it on notice. I haven't got the document. I don't know the date of the document.

Senator XENOPHON: I'm happy for you to take that on notice, but I've got concerns
as to the validity of the document in relation to that. This document relates to Mr
James having to take a proficiency check prior to being able to act as a pilot in
command of a multicrew aircraft. I've provided you with a copy of that. It's a form
signed by Mr Roger Chambers, but my understanding is that it is not properlyendorsed. Are you able to confirm that, or do you need to take that on notice? Mr

Carmody: I'll take that on notice.

Question on notice no. 120

Portfolio question number: 443

2017-18 Supplementary budget estimates

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure and

Senator XENOPHON: So there's a question there: is the standard form
recommendation incomplete? I asked you to take that on notice. If it is in some way
incomplete or deficient, that may have some bearing on the decision-making processof CASA. It's a technical question, but could you take that on notice? Mr Carmody:

I'll take it on notice, but if it's a current standard form recommendation, then, as I said
before, that's why I'd like to review it. The standard form recommendation that I
assume underpins the original decision probably has not changed. Anyway, I'll take it
on notice and have a look at it.

Question on notice no. 121

Portfolio question number: 444

2017-18 Supplementary budget estimates

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure and

Senator XENOPHON: I'll put this in general terms. There's an issue of process that
I'm concerned about. The names of the individuals aren't so key to this. Who was
authorised to see the draft report, as to the processes involved for that? Can you takethat on notice? Mr Carmody: Certainly. Senator XENOPHON: Were there anyindividuals who weren't authorised to see the report who did see the report? Mr

Carmody: I'll take both of those on notice. The draft report is provided to us to
provide comment on, and you would expect my inspectorate those who are involved
in the matter to be reviewing that report and providing comment

Question on notice no. 122

Portfolio question number: 445

2017-18 Supplementary budget estimates

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure and

Senator XENOPHON: Does that relate to documents such as standard formrecommendations or not? Dr Aleck: I think under the FOI legislation there are some
limitations about what goes on there. But anything that we're required to post publiclywill be on there. Senator XENOPHON: So there's no question that these documents
that weren't posted publicly should have been posted publicly? Can you take that intoaccount? Dr Aleck: If they were within the category of documents that ought to havebeen identified then I Senator XENOPHON: If you could take that on notice.

Dr [b]Aleck: I will, yes.[/b]

Question on notice no. 123

Portfolio question number: 446

2017-18 Supplementary budget estimates

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure and

Senator XENOPHON: It's good to clarify that. I'm almost finished. The Senate
inquiry some time ago found that there were a number of points of fault in the Pel-Air
incident. It's clear there are a number of impositions on Mr James. Can CASA advise
what other officials or what other entities by title, not name have had a remedial
action placed on them in terms of whether there were multiple points of fault leadingto this incident? Mr Carmody: Sorry, Senator, can I just clarify that. Are you talkingspecifically about the Pel-Air incident? Senator XENOPHON: Yes, I am. Mr

Carmody: And whether we have placed restrictions on anyone else? Senator

XENOPHON: Yes. Mr Carmody: I can take it on notice, but I understand the only
restriction that was placed would be a restriction placed on the pilot in command, at
this stage. I don't believe any other restrictions have been placed on the first officer,but I can check. Senator XENOPHON: And not on management issues with Pel-Airand their systems? Mr Carmody: I don't know whether that leads to any restrictions,but I'll take that on notice. Senator XENOPHON: And, on notice, there are issues of
air traffic control and weather forecasting, so, if not restrictions, were thererecommendations made in relation to improvements of that? Mr Carmody: Certainly
I'm aware that a number of changes or improvements were made post that accident,
but I can provide those responses on notice. I think they've been provided before, butI'm quite happy to provide them. Senator XENOPHON: Okay. On notice, after the
release of the report, can you advise the committee of every person who was
identified as contributing to the accident directly or indirectly and any action that
CASA has taken in respect of those persons. That is something that can be done afterthe ATSB report. Mr Carmody: We will have to wait for the ATSB report, but
certainly.

Question on notice no. 124

Portfolio question number: 447

2017-18 Supplementary budget estimates

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure and

Senator STERLE: Mr Carmody, I know you are just going to have a read of that, but
I want to be very, very precise here. Dr Aleck, I'm going to ask you, in terms of your
investigation and interviewing of Mr Ashby, did your investigators ask Mr Ashby if
he sought approval to fly the drone over Parliament House from any governmentagency, department or bodysecurity agency? Dr Aleck: I will take your question on
notice as to whether he was asked if he had asked permission, but what we do have in
the material in fact that's before me now is that we inquired of the AFP and of theorganiser of the event, and no permission was sought of those Senator STERLE: I
will come back a couple of steps. Can you tell this committee: did your investigators
ask Mr Ashby or did Mr Ashby offer advice or answer your investigators' questionsthat he sought approval from the AFP to fly the drone? Dr Aleck: That information I
haven't looked all through this yet, but I can't answer that question at the moment. I'mnot aware of that, but I haven't looked thoroughly at the materials. Senator STERLE:

How long would it take you to get that information? Dr Aleck: Whether ourinvestigator asked Mr Ashby that question? Senator STERLE: Whether Mr Ashby
offered an answer to your investigators that he sought approval to fly the drone overParliament House on that day from the AFP? Dr Aleck: It shouldn't take long.

Senator STERLE: Thank you. I'll wait for that answer.

Come on CC, how hard is it to provide the AQON to those questions? FDS!

In the words of the Heff...

MTF...P2

Ps On the subject of Carmody's hypocritical duplicity, I note that the enforcement manual is yet to be amended (last amended 17 Jan 2016) and still contains the moniker of former Sociopath DAS McCormick: Director's preface -

Helen, from the RRAT committee Secretariat, replied today to my request for an update on the progress of the Supp Estimates AQON:

Quote:Dear P2,Happy New Year. We received a number of responses to QONs for CASA, Airservices Australia and the Aviation and Airports division prior to Christmas but after our Secretariat had shut down. I will be publishing these later today. Please note, we are still awaiting some answers to these questions.Kind regards,

Helen

Okay so the following is the AQON (for CASA) received and processed so far...

The first AQON is in reply (see above) to Barry O's QON No. 114:

Quote:Answer
• On 29 September 2017, an email was sent to Ms Landry’s office, seeking confirmation that it was her in video footage obtained by CASA of this event and whether she recalled the operation of the drone and could indicate what she believed to be the distance between her and the drone Mr Ashby was operating.

• On 11 October 2017, having had no response to his email, the CASA Investigator contacted Ms Landry’s office by telephone, at which time he was advised by an office staff member that it was not Ms Landry in the video, but rather, the staff member believed the individual to be the Hon Jane Prentice MP.

• On 11 October 2017, an email was sent to Ms Prentice’s office seeking confirmation that it was her in the video footage and putting the same questions to her as were put to Ms Landry.

• On 13 October 2017, having received no response to his email of 11 October 2017, the CASA Investigator contacted Ms Prentice’s office by telephone. A member of Ms Prentice’s staff advised the Investigator that Ms Prentice was unavailable to speak with him at the time, but that she would respond to his inquiries.

• On 18 October 2017, in the absence of any further response, the CASA Investigator again contacted Ms Prentice’s office by telephone. On this occasion, he spoke with Ms Prentice’s office manager, who advised the CASA Investigator that his email message had not been considered to be genuine.

• On 18 October 2017, the CASA Investigator re-sent his email of 11 October 2017 to Ms Prentice’s office manager. In response, the CASA Investigator was advised by the office manager that it was Ms Prentice in the video footage, and provided the CASA Investigator with contact details of the event organiser, Mr Andy Turnbull.

• On 18 October 2017, the CASA Investigator spoke to Mr Turnbull by telephone, at which time Mr Turnbull responded to the CASA Investigator’s question about the number of people present at the event on 21 June 2017, estimating that number to be have been 50 or 60 persons. Mr Turnbull also provided a group photo of a number of the people present on the day of the event and his estimation of the dimensions of the area in which participants and observers of the day’s event would have been located.

• On 18 October 2017, a further email was sent to Ms Prentice’s office, asking whether Ms Prentice recalled the operation of the drone by Mr Ashby on 21 June 2017, and if so, whether she could provide any information about that operation. No response has been received to this email.

• On 23 October 2017, on the basis of the evidence available and an assessment of the apparent risks involved, in keeping with the applicable enforcement-related protocols it was determined that further investigation was not warranted. Accordingly, a counselling letter was issued to Mr Ashby admonishing him about his drone flight on 21 June 2017. With the closure of the investigation into this matter, no further attempts were made to contact Ms Prentice.

Answered Date

22/12/2017
&..QONs 116 & 117:

Answer
In speaking with Mr Ashby about his operation of a drone at Parliament House on 21 June 2017, the CASA Investigator did not ask Mr Ashby how many people he (Mr Ashby) believed were present at the time, or the identity of any of those individuals who were present.

However, on 18 October 2017, the CASA Investigator spoke to Mr Andy Turnbull (the event organiser) by telephone. Mr Turnbull said the number of people present at the event on 21 June 2017 was estimated to have been 50 or 60 persons.

Now this is where it gets interesting because we actually have the answers for the NX QONs related to the CASA Sydney Regional office 8+ year embuggerance of DJ...
The first one is a classic example of the legalese word weasel confections that CASA LSD (i.e. Dr Aleck) deploy when trying to subvert answering the question honestly...

Quote:QON 119 to 123:

Answer
The standard form recommendation (SFR), as tabled, is incomplete in that the delegate has not indicated on the form whether they agree or disagree with the recommendation and signed accordingly. While a document signed by the delegate that agreed with the action has not been located, the SFR was acted upon in that the condition was added to the flight crew licence.

However, the condition on the flight crew member’s licence was not created by this SFR rather the SFR recommended the condition be printed on the licence. The condition originated from an agreement between the pilot and the Executive Manager CASA Operations contained in a letter to the pilot dated 27 March 2012. The conditions are valid because of this letter, regardless of whether the process to have the condition statement added to the flight crew licence was not completed correctly.

22/12/2017Answer
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau’s (ATSB) draft report for the reopened investigation into ‘Ditching of Israel Aircraft Westwind 1124A aircraft, VH-NGA, 5 km SW of Norfolk Island Airport on 18 November 2009’ (AO-2009-072) was distributed in accordance with the actions contemplated by sections 9 and 10 of the Memorandum of Understanding between the ATSB and CASA.

CASA personnel to whom copies of the draft report were provided were authorised to review the draft report in accordance with Section 26 (4) of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003, which permits disclosure and copying of draft reports necessary for the purpose of (a) preparing submissions on the draft report; or (b) taking steps to remedy safety issues that are identified in the draft report.

22/12/2017Answer
The documents in question were not provided in response to a request made under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act). Rather, in keeping with principles reflected in the FOI Act, CASA provided the documents to the individual involved as personal information pertaining to him, in accordance with an administrative access arrangement, by which agencies are encouraged to release documents in response to requests outside the formal process set out in the FOI Act.

In accordance with the Commonwealth Information Publication Scheme, documents released pursuant to administrative access arrangements are not required to be published in an agency’s FOI Disclosure Log.

Had the documents in question been released to the applicant under the FOI Act, they would have been exempt from publication in CASA’s FOI Disclosure Log under section 11C of the FOI Act because, in CASA’s view, their publication would have involved an unreasonable disclosure of personal information.

22/12/2017Answer
CASA has taken no regulatory action against any person identified in the initial ATSB investigation report (AO-2009-072) released on 30 August 2012, or in the final ATSB investigation report published on 23 November 2017, who could be considered as contributing to the accident, other than the Pilot in Command.

Inquiry into the operation, regulation and funding of air route service delivery to rural, regional and remote communities

Thank you for your emails of 22 November and 6 December 2017 inviting the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to make a submission to the above Inquiry.

Your email of 6 December provided further advice, namely that the Committee would like to identify all the regulatory and compliance costs involved with running an airline or managing an aerodrome. You also indicated that, as the regulatory framework differs according to the scale and usage of an aerodrome, the Committee would be interested in understanding what the regulations are and how they differ from one aerodrome to another as well as what cost impost this poses on respective aerodromes.

I am happy to provide some preliminary information on these topics ..

• A list of CASA fees and charges

CASA is required by Government policy to undertake cost recovery arrangements and a list of fees and charges is attached. Please note that, technically speaking, all CASA fees and charges in the Civil Aviation (Fees) Regulation 1995 are applicable to regional airlines and aerodromes (the exceptions being Part 17 'Unmanned Aircraft and Rockets', Part 19 'Air Traffic Service Training Providers' and Part 21 'Air Traffic Service Providers'). The licensing Parts are applicable to individuals but usually their employer would pay on their behalf.

There is no cost/price differentiation for the fees based on locality of the applicant. Rather the applicable price or hourly rate is determined by the complexity of the service being sought by the applicant. There has been no price increase in CASA's charges or the hourly rates since July 2007.

• Information on the regulatory distinctions between various types of aerodromes

I attach a summary of the regulatory framework governing aerodromes. Please note that CASA is presently undertaking a post implementation review of Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR) Part 139 including the subsidiary Manual of Standards.

The proposal is to remove the registered aerodrome category and replace the certification category with a scalable model - whereby aerodrome systems and the resultant regulatory requirements are scaled against safety requirements and the resultant risk (represented as the number of passenger and aircraft movements at the aerodrome per annum).

More details can be found in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making on the CASA web site at: https://consultation.casa.gov.au/regulat...ogram/nprm 1426as/. Industry consultation has now closed and CASA intends to facilitate the making of the new regulations by the third quarter of 2018.

The provision of air services is largely dependent on the facility requirements of the aircraft operator against the capability and capacity of an aerodrome, as provided by the aerodrome operator. Prior amendments to the Part 139 Manual of Standards in 2014 reflected a change in regulatory policy where specific aircraft requirements where 'delinked' from the aerodrome standards. The aerodrome operator is thus able to build and upgrade their infrastructure based on commercial/cost considerations and can then nominate their facility capability to CASA. CASA then manages its compliance and surveillance functions based on this nomination.

CASA's ruleset under CASR Part 139 intends to support the effective utilisation of all
aerodromes to an acceptable level of safety. CASA also conducts surveillance on aircraft
operators that use certified or registered aerodromes to ensure that the aerodromes they use are safe and suitable for the aircraft type, operation and resultant risk is considered.

I trust this information is of assistance. I also wish to flag that following submissions from other parties to the Inquiry, CASA may make a supplementary submission in response but is also willing to provide any further information that the Committee may require, including responding to questions in writing.

Yours sincerely

Shane Carmody
Chief Executive Officer and
Director of Aviation Safety

'delinked' -

"..Prior amendments to the Part 139 Manual of Standards in 2014 reflected a change in regulatory policy where specific aircraft requirements where 'delinked' from the aerodrome standards..."

Is that like zero care, zero association and total abrogation of all liability and responsibility when it comes to airports?? -

Marc De Stoop, the managing director of FalconAir/ Picture: James Croucher

The Australian 12:00AM February 3, 2018

EAN HIGGINS
Reporter Sydney
@EanHiggins

The aviation watchdog faces a Senate grilling this month over its decision to ground all pilots of a small medical air services operator over a technical breach by one of them, which resulted in a Sydney patient missing out on a heart transplant.

South Australia’s Rex Patrick has vowed to interrogate Civil Aviation Safety Authority officers when they appear before a Senate estimates hearing on February 27 over the event just before Christmas, which was exposed by The Australian.

Senator Patrick, of the Nick Xenophon Team, said the move by CASA to ground FalconAir, which operates out of Sydney and Brisbane providing medical evacuation and organ transplant flights with three aircraft, lacked practical logic, flew in the face of urgings by CareFlight and other organisations that the service was needed, and ran against legal precedent.

“Common sense hasn’t prevailed here, jurisprudence has been ignored,” said Senator Patrick, who replaced Mr Xenophon in the Senate in November.

The move comes as the managing director of FalconAir, Marc De Stoop, said since he went public over the aborted transplant mission, CASA had told him it would put his air service through two more costly and complex audits, a move he described as unprecedented.

“They are all over me like a rash,” Mr De Stoop, who is president of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, told The Weekend Australian.

“We have done nothing really wrong — we have made some mistakes about our procedure,” he said. One of his pilots remains grounded.

“If they keep it up, we don’t have a business, 10 Australians don’t have a job, and the country does not have a vital service.”

As revealed by The Australian on December 8, CASA grounded not only FalconAir’s check pilot because an audit revealed he flew a competency flight on the wrong type of aircraft, but also the other six FalconAir pilots he had tested because the checks were consequently deemed invalid.

Mr De Stoop, with the backing of international air ambulance group CareFlight, pleaded with CASA to grant temporary exemptions from the grounding for two pilots so he could have one crew ready to respond to medical emergencies over the holiday period.

CASA refused.

An air ambulance flight ­broker contacted FalconAir on December 16 to ask whether the company could fly a St Vincent’s Hospital transplant team to Auckland on an urgent mission to take out the heart from a donor and bring it back to ­Sydney to transplant into a ­recipient patient.

As a result of the groundings, FalconAir had to say no, the broker was unable to find an alter­native service, and after three hours the transplant team determined it was too late and the mission had to be cancelled. At last report, the patient was still on the transplant waiting list.

A CASA spokeswoman said the regulator was “confident its actions in this matter were in the best interests of aviation safety and within the requirements of the law”.
& comment in reply from Sandy...

Quote:Alexander

Thank goodness for the Australian, the only newspaper with the guts and integrity to shine a light on a potential advertiser which might illuminate faulty administration or worse.

The vast bulk of the aviation community have no confidence or respect for the (Un) Civil Aviation Safety Authority. Since CASA was morphed into a Commonwealth corporate, 30 years ago, sitting outside the Public Service, it has embarked on a make work program of rule changing so stupendous and wasteful to defy belief. The latest tranche of rules framed as strict liability criminal acts is so convoluted, counterproductive to safety, run into thousands of pages. The line of which no other developed country has to put up with, ie to the US and NZ we are a joke.

As a retired Commercial pilot and instructor formerly holding a number of CASA approvals, I can attest without any reservation that the heart transplant flight should have gone ahead. FalconAir’s pilots are extremely well qualified and for CASA to not allow a week or two put back of annual additional check flights across a fleet of the Falcon jets of different model number is beyond comprehension. Plain unreasonable.

The most common feeling about this sorry saga in the aviation community would be disgust at the treatment of FalconAir. We can only hope that the Aus continues it’s expose’ and that the Senate exposes CASA for what it has become, a make work salary factory that gobbles up a $billion dollars every two or three years and is destroying General Aviation into the bargain. One could form the view that CASA’s action against FalconAir is to make an example of them, show who’s boss, especially that the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association has been highly critical of CASA in its fight to save GA. Tactics of the bully. Alex in the Rises.

RRAT news
In the lead up to the Additional Estimates we are still waiting for the official timetable to be released and some outstanding QON to be answered but; in the meantime, there is some other news on the Senate RRAT committee front.

Quote:The Clerk: A notification of extension of time for a committee to report has been lodged in respect of the following:

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee—Air route service delivery to rural, regional and remote communities—extended from 30 March to 20 September 2018.

I thought this was interesting because when I last looked the submission uptake for this important inquiry was quite disappointing. However on review I was heartened to observe that there is now over 100 submissions and growing - Submissions

I also noted that one of those submissions was a short 3 page letter from ASA CEO Harfwit...

The part of this short note that intrigued me was the Harfwit's weasel worded bollocks under the heading 'Enhancing efficiency'

Quote:Enhancing efficiency

Airservices acknowledges that our service charges for Terminal Navigation, Aviation Rescue and Fire Fighting and Enroute services are part of the costs borne by airlines and operators that fly in and around major regional locations.

For an average regional service flying 800km (e.g between Mildura and Sydney) we charge less than $200 (or $7 per passenger). For a larger aircraft flying a longer haul regional service of 1,300kms (e.g. between Perth and Karratha) we charge approximately $800 (or $10 per passenger).

To minimise the cost burden of our services, we have worked hard over the last few years to improve our business and be more responsive, agile and flexible in delivering value to our customers while maintaining and enhancing our safety performance. This work has enabled us to maintain prices at the same level they were in 2015 and put us in a position to manage price growth into the future.

We are doing this whilst delivering our largest infrastructure project which will replace our core air traffic management system with Defence ('OneSKY program). This program will improve our service capability and deliver a range of economic and safety benefits, including for regional, rural and remote communities. To improve the safety and efficiency of traffic in regional areas we are also investing in new surveillance services across 11 regional locations through the expansion of our Automatic Dependant Surveillance - Broadcast (ADS-8) services.

To address this imbalance we apply cross subsidies whereby charges are levied below the cost of services provision in a number of price sensitive locations including the regions.

Whilst we try to move service charges to fully recover costs, they are no more than an
estimated rate of annual inflation. These subsidies include:
• network enroute subsidies, whereby most regional airport prices (e.g. Albury, Tamworth) are capped and subsidised by charges for enroute services; and
• network based aviation rescue and fire fighting services subsidies (to smaller category 6 aircraft) which reduces the services charge at low traffic volume regional airports (e.g. Ballina, Broome).
• capital city basin subsidies, whereby capital city general aviation airport prices (e .g.
Bankstown) are subsidised by the major airport (Kingsford Smith);

For smaller aircraft operations (weighing less than 5 tonnes) we do not levy aviation rescue and fire fighting charges. If the same aircraft incurs less than $500 in charges per annum for our other services, we also waive our fees.

Our operating environment is strictly governed by legislation and decisions made by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). These constraints limit our ability to choose the level of service we supply at each airport and, also, how we achieve that level of service, which in turn, has a financial and operational impact on our customers. Working closely with CASA, we strive to improve the economic outcomes for our regional customers through regulatory reform. An example of this is our recent work into the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review where we supported a shift to risk-based assessment approach for the establishment and disestablishment of aviation rescue and fire fighting services.

Airservices number one priority continues to be on the safety of our customers.
Nonetheless, we will continue to maintain our focus on our obligation to minimise costs in order to support the growth of industry.

Did you pick the UTB moment -

Of interest I note that the Oz is also monitoring this inquiry and today picked up on the OneSKY waffle in the Harfwit submission:

OneSKY ‘a boon for bush’12:00AMAirservices has declared that the ambitious One­SKY project will benefit bush communities.

Airservices has told the Senate inquiry into regional airfares the rollout of OneSKY, the joint project with the Department of Defence to integrate traffic management systems, would “deliver a range of economic and safety benefits, including for regional, rural and remote communities”.

The submission comes as the Australian National Audit Office has recently found that the project is running almost 2½ years behind schedule. Airservices this week said a contract with French aerospace giant Thales would be signed by the end of next month.
The Oz has also picked up on another submission from the WA Department of Transport:

Extending particular airport screening rules could see some ‘critical’ air services abandonedThe Western Australia Department of Transport has warned that extending particular airport screening rules could see some “critical” air services abandoned.

The WA Department of Transport has also told the Senate inquiry into air services to rural, regional and remote areas that potential changes from a federal review of airport security screening “may have an adverse impact on airfares in regional WA”.

The department says that if current arrangements requiring screening passengers on airliners weighing more than 20 tonnes were extended to all regional public air services, “there is a significant likelihood critical air services in WA would be discontinued.”

“This would include air services to Laverton, Leonora, Meekatharra, Mount Magnet, Wiluna, Halls Creek, Kalumburu and Monkey Mia. Most of these routes carry significantly less than 5000 passengers per year,” the submission says. “If this were to occur there would be a major impact on these towns and this would not be an acceptable outcome to these communities.”

Then Infrastructure and Transport Minister Darren Chester ordered the Inspector of Transport Security to conduct the review last year.

The department says that if security requirements are tightened, “the cost of implementation and ongoing operation needs to be considered by the commonwealth including what financial assistance is made available to affected regional airports.”

The Australian Airports Association said that if new screening requirements are needed at regional airports, “it needs to be understood this cannot be accommodated without significant financial assistance”.

Alexander “The most common feeling about this sorry saga in the aviation community would be disgust at the treatment of Falcon Air.”

There was late last evening a very serious, sober, late meeting of the BRB. The small gathering had been arranged for one purpose only, to hear, first hand, a report from Canberra. Disappointment and dismay created a very sombre atmosphere. The general feeing by briefing’s end was that industry may well have to survive a little longer on a diet of disgust; for there was little in the way of hope or cheer to report.

Alexander “We can only hope that the Aus continues it’s expose’ and that the Senate exposes CASA for what it has become, a make work salary factory that gobbles up a $billion dollars every two or three years and is destroying General Aviation into the bargain.”

Well Alex, that may or may not occur before the end of the century, but I for one will not be holding my breath, nor making the journey to Canberra to cheer the ‘Senate’ along, life is too short. “So what was it?” asked one of the BRB – “Dunno” came the reply, “but I can tell you what it was not”. We waited a short while as P7 collected his thoughts. “I believed it was to be a briefing for the Senators on the second Pel-Air report, it was hoped that the briefing on that topic could be expanded into a discussion on the way ATSB and CASA acted during the investigation and production of the first report, thus exposing through the documented, almost picture perfect examples of Airtex, Polar, Barrier, Skymaster and Falcon why a reform of the regulator and some sane leadership was essential”. “That is not going to happen”. (Cue in: 'the crack of doom').

I’ll paraphrase the rest. It seems to have been more like a police interrogation rather than a ‘briefing’ to provide useful information; but arse backwards. In the normal manner of such things a witness provides a sworn statement – it is, normally, up to the Bobby’s to ‘investigate’ the lawyers to argue and the judge to make a ruling. Not so this time; it seems as if all must be slowly spoon fed, in small bite sized pieces to a nestling who just doesn’t get it. There is a thirty odd year history of commissions, inquiry, investigation, report and gods know what else, at great public cost, providing a small mountain of rock solid, tested evidence available. The last Senate outing into the ‘inquiry’ paddock netted 37 Senate recommendations, which have been completely ignored. Then there was the ministerial ASSR stemming from the Senate findings which provided another 30 odd recommendations; once again. ignored, then denigrated into ‘opinion’. In short, CASA keep running rings around the Senate, by the time any committee lumbers, slowly into action, the bird has flown away. By the time every tiny piece of the jig-saw puzzle is put together so that a clear picture may emerge; there’s no one, this side of history, alive to enjoy it.

Alexander “One could form the view that CASA’s action against Falcon Air is to make an example of them, show who’s boss, especially that the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association has been highly critical of CASA in its fight to save GA. Tactics of the bully. Alex in the Rises.”

And so it will continue for the foreseeable future if the RRAT committee continues at the plodding, pedantic speed it seems to prefer; it is, as P7 put it, like trying to explain colour to a disinterested blind man.

The consensus? Well, there may be a small fireworks display for the masses, even the beheading of a few insignificant sacrificial lambs, which may be fun. But any form of ‘deep and meaningful’ reform of the regulator remains a very small speck on a distant horizon, which we approach at the speed of a snail, uncertain of direction, bereft of understanding, trapped in amber and in no particular hurry, whatsoever.

Resolution. – We shall hold the jackets, watch with interest, keep the powder dry, but not invest in the outcome. Investment requires faith and belief. Maybe next time. There will be a next time, rest assured; for ATSB and CASA will continue until the next, inconvenient red light, wait it out and then continue on their merry way; same old, same old. History – anyone?